More likely to be Chinese Yuan. The symbol is similar. About 6 Yuan to the dollar I think.

They should be allowed to vote while incarcerated as well.

Sure, but one side seems to be advocating for more of the same shittiness we’ve had for decades, and the other side for a final solution to the Palestinian problem. It’s not like the choices are equal.

I think most places would view such a refusal as grounds for disciplinary action against the lawyer.

New Zealand for example has legislation to address this: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2008/0214/latest/DLM1437864.html

There can be good causes to refuse a client, conscientious objection is not one of them.

Parents, copyrights, and trademarks are grouped together as Intellectual Property. They’re all quite distinct however.

The signing ensures the integrity of the data, whether using a public block chain or not.

The signed document can be distributed as widely as you’d like - it doesn’t need to be attached to a block chain to do this.

Sure, there’s always going to be outliers. Most people live and work in the same metropolitan area though - they’re not driving 50,000km+ a year. Besides, having a vehicle with 5 times the effective lifetime is going to be a big win regardless of how much you drive it.

Thanks!

I missed the site wide rules.

Yeah, that sort of rule requires a lot of faith in the moderators. Seems like they’re probably violating it themselves with their moderation.

Perhaps I don’t really understand - looking at the world news community on lemmy.ml rule 1 seems to be about only posting links to news articles. None of the things on the mod log screenshot look like news articles. Isn’t this the mods doing their jobs correctly?

The OP’s situation seems completely different to this and it’s definitely a problem - what am I missing about the rule 1 stuff though?

You guys should really think about changing your voting system.

Our voting uses something called a Single Transferable Vote. You can rank candidates in order of preference - last place gets eliminated and any votes they got are instead transferred to each voters’ next preference. Repeat until there’s only one left.

It cuts out most of the stupid games and you get to see people’s positions more honestly.

In this case it’d let people vote for an anti genocide candidate and still indicate that they’d prefer Biden over Trump.

I’ve always heard them described as seagull managers. Screams loudly, shits everywhere, leaves.

Me observing that it’s cold out and offering to sell you some gear so you can avoid frostbite isn’t extortion.

Me threatening to break your legs if you don’t buy something is.

Hope that helps.

Sometimes taking what seems like the right stand on an issue can deepen the harm - be careful about getting too extreme.

For example when the whole “gamergate” thing was going on and people were like “Why can’t I just enjoy Tomb Raider?” - one side was standing up for diversity and inclusion by denouncing them as basement-dwelling incels who should self-terminate. So that naturally drove some to those right-wing assholes.

Sometimes it takes a bit of work to change someone’s context so they can get closer to your perspective.

They’re just a consultancy service - hardly worth investigating. Seems that they purport to offer expertise on how a developer can improve diversity and inclusion in their products.

Like any consultancy, whether they can actually do this and whether their clients will actually implement it effectively are another matter entirely.

The Steam group creator seems to think either they’re garbage or that their clients’ approach to diversity and inclusion is garbage. (Or maybe they’re just some alt-right incel Nazi <insert favoured pejorative here…>)

This particular take that’s going around seems to be almost as stupid as Sweet Baby Inc’s attempted takedown of the Steam group.

They’re just pointing out reality - gaming media is “woke”, if your product doesn’t check the diversity and inclusion boxes it will be criticized, “hire us to help”. They’re basically a PR firm.

This isn’t them threatening to cause the damage, they’re not The Mob - “Say, that’s a nice game you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it.”

And even if you do have the talent internally you can still seek specialised feedback on your work - most authors work with editors for example.

The only reason this case is notable is because of the reactionary response to the “woke” games industry (and games journalism in particular). This is just another round of nonsense in this culture war, so people on either side are staking out ridiculous positions.

Copyright has little to say in regards to training models - it’s the published output that matters.

The UNIX philosophy isn’t about having only one way to do things - it’s about being able to use tools together. The deliberately simple interface is what makes it so powerful - almost any existing too can become part of a pipeline. It’s adaptable.

Something transformative from the original works. And arguably not being being distributed. The model producing and distributing derivative works is entirely different though. No one really gives a shit about data being used to train models - there’s nothing infringing about that which is exactly why they won their case. The example in the post is an entirely different situation though.

Using it to train on is very different from distributing derived works.